Subrogation & Client Satisfaction Success Stories

CLIENT SATISFACTION: 9/12/2018

“To be honest, I would recommend your company to anyone! The service is absolutely incredible compared to other companies. Typically I hear back within 1 hour (sometimes 15 minutes or less) the expert name and contact information and I am contacting them to give any additional information I found during my recorded statement prior to the vehicle inspection.

Their inspections are typically the next day depending on schedule or weather. I had an expert from your company inspect a vehicle over Memorial Day weekend due to the insured’s work schedule and I thought that was AWESOME! That shows absolute dedication to me. I have never had a problem with any of your experts and I’m thinking our subrogation department agrees. I will continue to use your company for all vehicle fires.

NJ: NEFCO’s Certified Vehicle Investigators conducted a successful O&C investigation of a 2014 SUV and were able to identify the fire originated as a result of a faulty fuel line supply. Upon review of NEFCO’s findings the auto manufacturer accepted responsibility and our client received 100% reimbursement for their claim.

PA: NEFCO’s Certified Vehicle Investigators conducted a successful O&C investigation of a 2017 vehicle and were able to identify the fire originated as a result of faulty workmanship by auto dealer service technician during routine maintenance. Based on NEFCO’s investigation the dealership accepted liability and our client recovered approximately $35,000.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: $1,000,000 Recovery – 01/2018

Working on behalf of the plaintiff, NEFCO fire analysts helped our client recover a $1,000,000 award. After the initial origin and cause investigation conducted by the defendants insurance company, the plaintiff’s structure was demolished and all evidence removed. NEFCO’s fire analysts used photographs, information from interviews, and depositions taken to evaluate the possible cause of the fire loss. NEFCO’s experts were deposed in this matter. Affidavits were filed on behalf of NEFCO’s experts stating that our client, the plaintiff, was not able to have a site inspection conducted due to the defendants insurance company ordering the site demolished before they could retain their own experts. Due to the lack of physical evidence being collected and preserved by the defendant, and the lack of a structure to examine, pinpointing an exact cause was impossible to prove.

The judge agreed with NEFCO’s allegations and our client was awarded $1,000,000.00.

PENNSYLVANIA: Dryer Fire Subrogation – 02/2016

NEFCO investigator, Michael Drushel, recently conducted an origin and cause investigation resulting in a subrogation recovery of 92% of policy limits. In his case NEFCO was retained by a national insurance carrier on behalf of the building owner/landlord. NEFCO’s fire investigation, completed an investigation in accordance with NFPA 921, was able to determine that the fire was caused due to a lack of dryer maintenance by the appliance’s owner (Tenant). The area of origin and evidence were immediately secured and the tenant’s insurance was put on notice. A joint inspection of the evidence by both partiers confirmed NEFCO’s findings and our client successfully recovered 92% of the policy limit from the tenant’s insurance carrier. The large loss adjuster handling this claims stated that “The main reason we recovered on this loss was due to NEFCO’s ability to quickly secure the scene and prevent spoliation of evidence. Everyone involved in the process seemed to be rushing to clean and restore the scene. Had NEFCO not been so urgent and diligent in their securing of evidence and their communication, chances are the dryer may have been disposed by a restoration company and forfeited our opportunity to recover”

In a recent NY State Supreme Court bench trial decision, an origin and cause investigation and testimony completed by NEFCO helped lead to a large subrogation estimated to be in excess of $600K. In this case the court stated, “The court’s decision is based on the evidence presented, and primarily on...Read More »